Intel Arc Pro A30M vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 Comparison

The Intel Arc Pro A30M and NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 occupy opposite ends of the mobile-to-workstation spectrum, yet the benchmark data shows both hold the same 75th percentile rank among all GPUs. This is where the similarity ends. The Arc Pro A30M is a 50 W mobile part built for efficiency, while the Quadro RTX 8000 is a 260 W dual-slot desktop behemoth with 48 GB of memory. The single shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, reveals a chasm: the Quadro RTX 8000 scores 125,554 against the Arc Pro A30M's 31,894, a 74.6% deficit for the Intel part. However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story—both land near 31,000–32,000, suggesting the Arc Pro A30M's single result punches far above its weight relative to its specifications.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro RTX 8000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, and it wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, it delivers 125,554 points, which is 74.6% higher than the Arc Pro A30M's 31,894. This is not a marginal victory; it is a four-fold difference in raw compute output. The NVIDIA card also holds a broader benchmark portfolio, with additional scores in Vulkan (125,781), Passmark G3D (19,799), and Passmark GPU Compute (9,992), none of which the Intel part has recorded. For any workload that scales with raw throughput—rendering, simulation, or large dataset processing—the Quadro RTX 8000 is the only choice based on the data.

The Arc Pro A30M's win is more subtle and lies in its efficiency profile rather than raw score. Its 50 W TDP is 210 W lower than the Quadro RTX 8000's 260 W, and it requires no power connectors, whereas the NVIDIA card needs a 6-pin and an 8-pin. The Intel part's 6 nm TSMC process node versus the NVIDIA card's 12 nm node means it achieves a transistor density of 45.9M per mm², nearly double the Quadro's 24.7M per mm². In the nearest rival comparison, the Arc Pro A30M actually edges out the Quadro RTX 8000 in average score, sitting at 31,894 versus 31,401, a 1.6% delta in the Intel part's favor. This suggests that in the specific benchmark where both have data, the Intel part is not merely competitive—it holds a slight edge over its larger rival.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is generational and philosophical. Intel's Arc Pro A30M uses the DG2-128 chip on the Xe-HPG architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. NVIDIA's Quadro RTX 8000 uses the TU102 chip on the Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process with 18,600 million transistors across a massive 754 mm² die. The transistor counts are stark: the Quadro RTX 8000 packs 11,400 million more transistors, but the Arc Pro A30M crams its fewer transistors into a much smaller area, achieving 45.9M transistors per mm² versus 24.7M.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro RTX 8000 fields 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores. The Arc Pro A30M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores, with no tensor cores listed. The NVIDIA card's FP32 throughput is 16.31 TFLOPS, exactly four times the Arc Pro A30M's 4.096 TFLOPS. FP16 follows the same pattern: 32.62 TFLOPS against 8.192 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio. The Quadro RTX 8000's pixel rate of 169.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 509.8 GTexel/s dwarf the Intel part's 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The Arc Pro A30M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 128.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro RTX 8000 offers 48 GB of GDDR6 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 672.0 GB/s—more than five times the bandwidth. The NVIDIA card's 1750 MHz memory clock (14 Gbps effective) is lower than the Intel part's 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective), but the wider bus more than compensates. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API coverage is identical. The Quadro RTX 8000 connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Arc Pro A30M uses PCIe 4.0 x8—a newer standard but half the lanes.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 is for workloads that demand maximum compute and memory capacity, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M is for systems where power and space are constrained. In the sole head-to-head benchmark, the Quadro RTX 8000 outperforms the Arc Pro A30M by 74.6%, and its 48 GB memory capacity is 12 times larger. The NVIDIA card's 16.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance is four times the Intel part's 4.096 TFLOPS. If the task is 3D rendering, scientific computation, or any memory-hungry professional application, the Quadro RTX 8000 is the only rational pick.

However, the Arc Pro A30M is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 31,894 sits 1.6% above the Quadro RTX 8000's 31,401, despite running on a fraction of the power. At 50 W with no external power connectors, it fits into mobile workstations or compact systems where the Quadro RTX 8000's 260 W TDP and dual-slot footprint (267 mm length, 111 mm height) are non-starters. The Intel part's 6 nm process and PCIe 4.0 interface represent newer technology, even if its absolute performance is lower. For a portable professional workload—CAD review, light rendering, or general GPU acceleration—the Arc Pro A30M offers a compelling efficiency story. The Quadro RTX 8000, with its launch MSRP of 9,999 USD, targets a completely different tier of professional work.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Arc Pro A30M edges out the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 in average score, 31,894 versus 31,401, a 1.6% difference in the Intel part's favor.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro RTX 8000 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 scores 125,554 against the Arc Pro A30M's 31,894, making it 74.6% faster in that specific test.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 8000 has 48 GB of GDDR6, while the Arc Pro A30M has 4 GB, a 12-fold difference. The NVIDIA card also offers 672.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 128.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card has the higher transistor density?

A: The Arc Pro A30M achieves 45.9M transistors per mm² on its 6 nm process, while the Quadro RTX 8000 has 24.7M per mm² on 12 nm, despite having more total transistors.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API-level feature parity exists.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Arc Pro A30M has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro RTX 8000 has a 260 W TDP and needs a 6-pin plus an 8-pin connector.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is not close. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 posts 125,554 points, while the Intel Arc Pro A30M manages 31,894. This represents a 74.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card, meaning the Quadro RTX 8000 delivers roughly four times the OpenCL compute throughput. In practical terms, any OpenCL-accelerated task—be it video encoding, physics simulation, or machine learning inference—would complete in a fraction of the time on the NVIDIA part.

The Arc Pro A30M's counterargument comes from the nearest rival data. Its average score of 31,894 is 0.7% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 570X (31,682) and NVIDIA TITAN RTX (31,676), and 1.6% higher than the Quadro RTX 8000's own average of 31,401. This is remarkable because the Quadro RTX 8000's raw compute is four times higher on paper. The Intel part's score suggests exceptional efficiency in the OpenCL workload it was tested on, likely due to its newer architecture and higher memory clock (2000 MHz versus 1750 MHz). The Quadro RTX 8000's other benchmarks—Vulkan at 125,781, Passmark G3D at 19,799, and Passmark GPU Compute at 9,992—show consistent strength, but none of these have a corresponding Arc Pro A30M result for direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reads like two different product categories. The Arc Pro A30M uses a 6 nm process with 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die; the Quadro RTX 8000 uses 12 nm with 18,600 million transistors on a 754 mm² die. Clock speeds favor the Intel part: 1500 MHz base and 2000 MHz boost versus 1395 MHz base and 1770 MHz boost for NVIDIA. Memory clock is also higher on the Intel card at 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

Everything else favors NVIDIA. Memory capacity is 48 GB versus 4 GB, bus width is 384-bit versus 64-bit, and bandwidth is 672.0 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. The Quadro RTX 8000 has 4,608 shading units, 288 TMUs, 96 ROPs, 72 RT cores, and 576 tensor cores; the Arc Pro A30M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 8 RT cores with no tensor cores. Pixel rate is 169.9 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s, texture rate is 509.8 GTexel/s versus 128.0 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 16.31 TFLOPS versus 4.096 TFLOPS. TDP is 260 W versus 50 W. The Quadro RTX 8000 is dual-slot, 267 mm long and 111 mm tall, with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a and 1x USB Type-C outputs; the Arc Pro A30M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Intel part uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The Quadro RTX 8000's predecessor is Quadro Volta and successor is Workstation Ampere; the Arc Pro A30M lists no predecessor or successor.